Below I will give a few links to Christian websites and resources (mp3 talks) for those who may like to investigate the claims of Christianity. This will basically be a thread to debate any and all areas of Christianity and questions/points people may have.

A few suggestions for the thread;

Do not presume your position is 100% correct and allow others to disagree with you; If you are going to do the above I request you don't post in this thread...

Weblinks

Well my favourite Christian Apologist is William Lane Craig (Achilles hates him :-P) here is his website, and if you register you can get to listen to MP3's of his talks and debates... http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer

Finally a great number of Christian MP3 talks and debates can be found here for apologists, but I'm sure ED and Achilles for example will be interested to see what young Christians are being indoctrinated in; http://www.bethinking.org/

Now i realize my other thread posting a link was rather badly set up, and i spoke out of turn a little to much. (okay, i admit i went totally overboard with the Solid proof of Christianity thread- i'm sorry.)

But these should be interesting sites to read up on.

Why did you guys leave out the Lee Strobel site? He's got lots of videos too- assorted ones, including some by Hugh Ross, who i think is excellent at explaining things on God's side.

In this tthread, i promise to not go overboard with my beliefs- in fact, i will not participate in this discussion likely, but instead thank the person who posted this thread for directing me to more informative sites on Christianity.

I also suggest going to the Stand to Reason site. good stuff for Christians there too.

Now i realize my other thread posting a link was rather badly set up, and i spoke out of turn a little to much. (okay, i admit i went overboard with the Solid proof of Christianity thread- i'm sorry.)

But these should be interesting sites to read up on.

Why did you guys leave out the Lee Strobel site? He's got lots of videos too- assorted ones, including some by Hugh Ross, who i think is excellent at explaining things on God's side.

In this tthread, i promise to not go overboard with my beliefs- in fact, i will not participate in this discussion likely, but instead thank the person who posted this thread for directing me to more informative sites on Christianity.

No real reason for leaving Stroebel out, he writes well and your thread had already brought him to people's attention. My one criticism of his works is he doesnt interview athiest experts he instead counts on his own experience as an athiest, which I don't think is fair. I am however trying to harras Achilles into reading a 'A Case for Christ'.

Strobel's not a bad starting point--he synthesizes some very deep philosophical issues down into something that people with no philosophical background can understand more easily. He's also a recovered atheist.... The importance of his book is he provides information for more reading when someone is ready to pursue a more in-depth discussion of one or more of the topics he brings up.

I don't see any reason why Christians should be required to include atheists in their books unless it's specifically a debate. Dawkins, Nagel, and Nietzsche have not included theistic philosophers in their works.

From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

I rather like Hugh Ross now- i've onyl seen two of his videos off of his site now, but he's good- really good! note the 'The chance of life existing by random is 10 to the 410th power! and it gets even more less likely each month, ttherefore intelligent design is the only option for that to be possible!' some things are so precise thhat they could not have hapened by random- ex: big bang couldn't have made Earth and solar system. I just used my Algebraic calculator-a really good one- and i got a syytax error trying to calcluate that! my calculator is one of the REALLY good ones.

I just want to take a moment to say that I love ground rules and I'm glad to see that more people are including them. Kudos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

Well my favourite Christian Apologist is William Lane Craig (Achilles hates him :-P)

Oh, you're much to harsh. I don't hate him at all.

His arguments are intentionally deceiving which is immoral. And since he claims to be a moral person and have knowledge about the source of morality, that make him a hypocrite. But even though he's an immoral hypocrite, I think it would be unfair to discredit his arguments without consideration.

Luckily, they are so full of logical fallacies that one does not have to wait long to dismiss his arguments on more legitimate basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

I am however trying to harras Achilles into reading a 'A Case for Christ'.

I'll PM you my mailing address and you can arrange to have a copy sent to me. I think that's a fair trade for afternoon that I'll never get back.

Or if you like, you can post what you feel are his most salient arguments here and I'll be happy to examine them for free

(hint: I think the wiki for the book attempts to summarize. You can probably just point me there)

I rather like Hugh Ross now- i've onyl seen two of his videos off of his site now, but he's good- really good! note the 'The chance of life existing by random is 10 to the 410th power! and it gets even more less likely each month, ttherefore intelligent design is the only option for that to be possible!' some things are so precise thhat they could not have hapened by random- ex: big bang couldn't have made Earth and solar system. I just used my Algebraic calculator-a really good one- and i got a syytax error trying to calcluate that! my calculator is one of the REALLY good ones.

The extremely long odds are also part of the logical justification for the many worlds arguement in quantum reality (that an infinite number of worlds actually exist, we just exist in the one capable of supporting life, therefore everything that is, is so much bigger than the Universe or anything we could conceivably measure).

If logic is your only standard, it has to be one of the two. There's no way to logically choose between the two, without some other basis for preference.

And so by reading those you've determined that he's set out to actually lie to people?

Yes. Dishonesty is not hard to spot, Jae.
For instance when someone introduces a strawman argument in a formal debate (a real one) and the opponent points out that it's a strawman and the first person neither retracts nor corrects their statement, but instead continues to repeat it, then they are being dishonest. They are intentionally trying to misrepresent someone else's statement for their own gain.

Now I'm sure you'll want to counter-argue that a man with a masters and two doctorates might not be aware that his arguments are strawmen, but I'll counter your counter-argument with the fact the his strawmen are frequently pointed out. Furthermore, he uses them in more than one debate. So he can't feign innocence without having another lie pinned on him.

It's like when your children try to slide a little white lie past you. You're smart enough not to pick up what they're putting down (unless you really do believe that the lamp broke itself). You don't divine these insight magically, you reason them out.

Here's a link to get you started. I hope you find the additional information beneficial.

Thank you for the link but that's not what I meant. Craig is free to disagree with his opponent's assertion that his statement was a strawman, and he may or may not be correct. That's entirely different from being intentionally deceptive.

From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

His arguments are intentionally deceiving which is immoral. And since he claims to be a moral person and have knowledge about the source of morality, that make him a hypocrite. But even though he's an immoral hypocrite, I think it would be unfair to discredit his arguments without consideration.

You said that it is unfair to discredit his arguments without consideration. I was wondering if you were going to critique particular portions of the video that jonathan7 posted.

His arguments are intentionally deceiving which is immoral. And since he claims to be a moral person and have knowledge about the source of morality, that make him a hypocrite. But even though he's an immoral hypocrite, I think it would be unfair to discredit his arguments without consideration.

If you are going to say such things I will back up Jae and ask that you give me several pieces of evidence...

1. Where Craig is wrong
2. Where is he deceiving people?
3. That said above deceit is intentional

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

I'll PM you my mailing address and you can arrange to have a copy sent to me. I think that's a fair trade for afternoon that I'll never get back.

Or if you like, you can post what you feel are his most salient arguments here and I'll be happy to examine them for free

(hint: I think the wiki for the book attempts to summarize. You can probably just point me there)

Take care!

You haven't PM'd me your email address yet bro, send it and I'll arrange to send you the book Its a pretty detailed book and I'm somewhat allergic to Wiki, I only use it for 'casual information' myself due to random people being allowed to edit it, although that is improving, You take care too!

Thank you for the link but that's not what I meant. Craig is free to disagree with his opponent's assertion that his statement was a strawman, and he may or may not be correct. That's entirely different from being intentionally deceptive.

If you had clicked the link and read the contents, you'd see that strawmen arguments have very specific characteristic that are easy to identify. Dr. Craig does not acknowledge that his argument has been called a strawman, nor does he attempt to clarify or rephrase his point. He simply repeats it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk102

You said that it is unfair to discredit his arguments without consideration. I was wondering if you were going to critique particular portions of the video that jonathan7 posted.

Read: nudge to stay on topic

I have critiqued Craig articles for jonathan7 before via PM, so I'm actually a little disappointed that he's parading Craig out and asking me to do it again as though we've never spoken this topic. If it would make you feel better for me to do this once more for the sake of the topic, I'll do so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

If you are going to say such things I will back up Jae and ask that you give me several pieces of evidence...

1. Where Craig is wrong
2. Where is he deceiving people?
3. That said above deceit is intentional

Jonathan7, you and I exchanged several lengthy PM over the course of a week a few months back (early April. The topics were "Keep you going" and "Craig article from www.bethinking.org"). The topic of those PMs was Dr. Craig and specifically one of his articles that you asked me to read and critique. Several of his flawed argument you acknowledged, but several you did not and in the interest of not pushing too hard on someone that appeared to be struggling with a previously unexamined viewpoint I did not pursue those points.

So, if you are going to come back and post a Craig link, pretend as though no one has ever pointed out his tactics to you before, and insist that I critique his work for you again, I will do it. However I will not be giving a pass on any points of discussion and I will wait to do so until you indicate to me that your school and the work on your book will not interfere with our discussion (ala "I will respond on Friday" which you sent me on 4/8/07). Fair enough?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

You haven't PM'd me your email address yet bro, send it and I'll arrange to send you the book

On it's way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

Its a pretty detailed book and I'm somewhat allergic to Wiki, I only use it for 'casual information' myself due to random people being allowed to edit it, although that is improving, You take care too!

Google books has an excerpt online. I think you may find that you and I have different interpretation for the word "detailed".

I always found this video to be most interesting. Richard Dawkins and the Bishop of Oxford sit down and have a very pleasant conversation about why he believes, gay rights, evolution, euthanasia, indoctrination and faith branding, miracles, the virgin birth, religious hatred, faith schools, and religious moderates. It may not be relevant for what you're looking at but it's a nice discussion.

If you are going to say such things I will back up Jae and ask that you give me several pieces of evidence...

This thread is incurring some of the same troubles as the earlier weblinks thread by Arcesious. I believe this forum would be better served if the original poster would in the future explicitly state the arguments to be discussed and provide web links as backup, rather than centralize the thread on the weblinks themselves. It would greatly help to meet the potential respondents half way in initiating a debate.

Thread pruned of posts that really belong in PMs instead. Before this thread gets off topic any further, debating the existence of the historical Jesus is a complex topic of its own that would be better served in a new thread in order to keep this relatively focused on general Christian links. This post in no way negates tk102's earlier comments, in fact I agree with him completely.

From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

I dunno what you guy'll think of allt hose, but i randomly found and selected them off of the internet for you guys to read- note i havn't read all fo them yet, but thought they'd be interestign reads. Mostly Christianity vrs evolution that i looked up.

If you had clicked the link and read the contents, you'd see that strawmen arguments have very specific characteristic that are easy to identify. Dr. Craig does not acknowledge that his argument has been called a strawman, nor does he attempt to clarify or rephrase his point. He simply repeats it.
.

That's not the same as proof of actual deception--it just means that he doesn't agree with the atheists' assertions that he's presenting a strawman. The burden of proof is still on you to provide examples where he's being intentionally deceptive, and you haven't even provided a single specific bit of evidence. If you can't, you should withdraw that accusation just as you tell everyone else to. I don't see anything in his speeches where he's trying to lie, and I don't agree that non-acknowledgment of someone's accusation of a strawman is the same as a lie.

From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

That's not the same as proof of actual deception--it just means that he doesn't agree with the atheists' assertions that he's presenting a strawman.

Taken from the link that I provided earlier (which I did so that you would not be forced to take my word for it):

Quote:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

There is nothing there about disagreeing with a position. There is a great deal about misrepresentation and misleading.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

The burden of proof is still on you to provide examples where he's being intentionally deceptive, and you haven't even provided a single specific bit of evidence.

Well I can post every single one of Craig's articles and debates or I can just refer you to his website.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

If you can't, you should withdraw that accusation just as you tell everyone else to.

From Craig's most recent debate:

Quote:

Iím not sure, based on Dr. Ehrmanís writings, whether he still believes in Jesusí resurrection or not. He never denies it. But he does deny that there can be historical evidence for Jesusí resurrection. He maintains that there cannot be historical evidence for Jesusí resurrection. Now this is a very bold claim, and so naturally I was interested to see what argument he would offer for its justification. I was stunned to discover that the philosophical argument he gives for this claim is an old argument against the identification of miracles which I had studied during my doctoral research and which is regarded by most philosophers today as demonstrably fallacious.

He goes on to accuse Ehrman of taking the argument from Hume and the proceeds to introduce another author that allegedly refutes Hume's argument. So he set up a straw man (recategorizing Ehrman's argument as Hume's), he produces a cardboard sword (he complete mischaracterizes the arguments made by another author which allegedly refutes Hume's argument...again still not touching Ehrman's) and then brandishes the cardboard sword in a threatening manner in the general vicinity of the strawman (he begins producing unverifiable religious "history" which is not attributed to the author he is allegedly quoting...which is a combination of begging the question fallacy and yet another strawman). He produces several minutes (/pages) of impressive mathematical equations which are all only valid insofar as you are willing to accept the conclusions which he considers foregone, but produces no evidence for any of his argument. All the while, assuming that we'll forget that he's only (erroneously) producing the (unattributed) opinion of one author which he (misleadingly) portrays as representative of "most philosophers", whom doesn't even address Ehrman's argument, but David Hume's!

And he does crap like this in every debate Jae. You don't "accidentally" poop all over everything this way. If you would like to counter argue that Craig is simply a phenomenal moron, I'll begrudgingly concede that it might be a supportable alternative hypothesis that bears further investigation, but in the mean time, I'm sticking with "immoral hypocrite".

So there is the first "instance of dishonesty" that I came across in the first debate listed in just the debate section alone (and I didn't have to leave the first page/opening remarks to find it).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

I don't see anything in his speeches where he's trying to lie, and I don't agree that non-acknowledgment of someone's accusation of a strawman is the same as a lie.

Well based on previous conversations and my perception of your reaction to criticism of Dr. Craig, I would venture a guess that you might be a little biased. We all have people that we look up to and we don't necessarily like it when others are critical of our sacred cows, so I understand where you're coming from.

Arcesious, this is not a Christian forum and even less a board for Christian internet propaganda.

If discussion of the provided material, or providing additional material to keep an objective focus on things on this topic is not for disposition, this thread is better to be closed and removed from this forum.

However, I don't think that's what jonathan7 had in mind when creating this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathan7

This will basically be a thread to debate any and all areas of Christianity and questions/points people may have.

A few suggestions for the thread;

Do not presume your position is 100% correct and allow others to disagree with you; If you are going to do the above I request you don't post in this thread...

The following is extracts between me and Achilles via PM several months ago...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles and Jonathan7

Heya bro,

Sorry to still not of replyed yet in the old thread Ethics and Religion thread, an given that I've taken so long I have ultimatly decided that I will read Dawkins books on 'the God delusuion' and 'A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life: An Ancestor's Tale' before offering replying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

God Delusion was good, however some of the later chapters were a little dry (the chapter on memes ate up a lot of my time). You might also want to consider Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris. It's a follow up to End of Faith, but I think it stands on it's own quite well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7
I still consider the bloke ignorant because he so rarely meets with his peers to debate any points and generally doesn't answer any questions that pose him difficulty. My opinions are formed from interviews and book reviews by the Sunday Times, speaking of which for your entertainment;

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

err...ok. I would encourage you to search YouTube for "dawkins" and watch some of the interviews. The only time I've seen him do anything that might resemble "dodging" is when he interviewed Ted Haggard and Haggard spewed blatantly *******ry (here). Here is an example of a lengthy Q&A session that, I feel, is representative of Dawkins (Part 1 is much shorter and might provide some context for this).

You can listen to Dawkins vs Professor Alister McGrath, which you may well find interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out and reply with my thought a little later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7
The other thing of interest for you is at; http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=100 not that I expect to convert you from Atheism, but I think the arguments are relevant for how science and religion are compatible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

I'm always interested in opposing viewpoints
Thanks!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7
I may well check Christian Nation after I've had a look at the other 2.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

*shrugs* I suggested it as a substitute for the other 2. It makes many of the same arguments and won't take you 6 weeks to get through.

Either way, I impressed that you'll be taking the time to read Dawkins. At least you can say you're familiar with the opposing viewpoints which is something most of your contemporaries cannot do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7
Dawkins does infuriate me though because he has an arrogance about him that I'm thick because I'm a Christian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

I think that you'll find that this is largely a misconception. Based on my experience he is mostly sympathetic with religious people, but no so much with religion itself. Where your point is valid is where it comes to "dyed in the wool faith-heads" (as he calls them). These are people that plug their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to any viewpoint that isn't their own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7
Just because I disagree with an Athiest doesn't mean I treat them as if they are stupid. Besides to quote Aristotle; ďIt is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.Ē So personally I think Dawkins demeans himself for lack of entertaining other pesectives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

I've never seen him actually do this, so I'll have to take your word for it. If you have examples, I'd very much like to see them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7
Anyways to source something for you; to quote Atheist Philosopher of Science, Michael Ruse; ĎI would like to see Dawkins take Christianity as seriously as he undoubtedly expects Christianity to take Darwinism. I would also like to see him spell out fully the arguments as to the incompatibility of science and religioní.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

I would like to know what causes Ruse to think that he hasn't. What makes him think that Dawkins "doesn't take Christianity seriously"? Also, Dawkins has repeatedly pointed out how science and religion are incompatible (he even does so in the debate that you provided for me earlier). If he doesn't think that Dawkins has done so, than he hasn't been paying attention.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7
He has also said; ĎThe God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why.í Reguarding the interview I gave you a link to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

I'm almost finished with Part 1 and haven't heard Dawkins say anything that should be cause for shame or embarrassment. In contrast, McGrath's arguments have some very big holes in them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathan7
Ultimatly my annoyance with Dawkins is the fact he won't have a debate with this man; http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/ who is the lecturer I have given you a link to in the previous message, and a very bright bloke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles

Hmmm...Any work of his that you would point me to as being representative of his intellect? To be honest, I've only read this article and I found it be intellectually destitute. If this is representative of his ability, then it's probably in his best interest that he not debate Dawkins. My 2 cents.

Jonathan7, if you don't mind, I believe I agreed to having you post the critique (not the length of our exchange). Please do not post any more of my PM until we've had a chance to discuss them. Thanks!

Jonathan7, if you don't mind, I believe I agreed to having you post the critique (not the length of our exchange). Please do not post any more of my PM until we've had a chance to discuss them. Thanks!

He goes on to accuse Ehrman of taking the argument from Hume and the proceeds to introduce another author that allegedly refutes Hume's argument. So he set up a straw man (recategorizing Ehrman's argument as Hume's), he produces a cardboard sword (he complete mischaracterizes the arguments made by another author which allegedly refutes Hume's argument...again still not touching Ehrman's) and then brandishes the cardboard sword in a threatening manner in the general vicinity of the strawman (he begins producing unverifiable religious "history" which is not attributed to the author he is allegedly quoting...which is a combination of begging the question fallacy and yet another strawman). He produces several minutes (/pages) of impressive mathematical equations which are all only valid insofar as you are willing to accept the conclusions which he considers foregone, but produces no evidence for any of his argument. All the while, assuming that we'll forget that he's only (erroneously) producing the (unattributed) opinion of one author which he (misleadingly) portrays as representative of "most philosophers", whom doesn't even address Ehrman's argument, but David Hume's!

Your evaluation above is of a transcript of Craig's rebuttal, not the opening statement. I expect that in a rebuttal, where one is addressing a number of points brought up by the opponent in a very short time, that there is going to be rapid movement from point to point to point to address the opponent's argument. I also expect decent reasoning but not perfection in a rebuttal--that's such a fluid environment and it's public speaking, not written arguments. There's no way to anticipate 100% what your opponent is going to bring up in the opening statement, so the rebuttal is going to change as the opening statement evolves. Ehrman does the same exact thing in his rebuttal--moving rapidly from point to point to point, except with less proof. All he says is 'Craig's wrong' while providing some vague references to 'some historians'. We are left wondering who these historians are, their qualifications, and what their arguments actually consist of, though that's going off on a bit of a tangent since this is supposed to be about Craig. At least Craig quotes the author and book from which he gets his information on Hume's arguments (not 'unattributed', as you claim)--I'll address the Hume issue in a moment. I expect that Craig would not go into a long drawn out discussion of the entire Hume/Ehrman problem in a rebuttal. The probability equations appear to be accurate, and addressed one specific point that Ehrman brought up in the opening statement about the probability of miracles.

Equating Ehrman's argument with Hume and then quoting someone else's refutation of Hume is only a strawman if Ehrman's argument is substantially different from Hume's, and if it is, then I can concede that point. I have read very little of Hume's arguments so I don't know. If they are substantially similar, then I don't take issue with Craig bringing in outside sources to support his points. If Ehrman's and Hume's arguments are very similar, then a refutation of Hume is going to be applicable to Ehrman as well. I don't see any reason why any debater should re-invent the wheel. However, Craig does finally connect all the dots near the end of his rebuttal, so he doesn't leave Ehrman's argument hanging out in the breeze as you contend.

I think your characterization of Craig as 'immoral hypocrite' (or worse) based on this rebuttal argument, which by definition is not going to be a complete argument because it is only addressing points of the opponent's opening statement, is unfair. I hope you aren't basing your entire opinion of Craig or other speakers based on this type of evaluation of speeches--you are cheating yourself in that way.

From MST3K's spoof of "Hercules Unchained"--heard as Roman medic soldiers carry off an unconscious Greek Hercules on a 1950's Army green canvas stretcher: "Hi, we're IX-I-I. Did somebody dial IX-I-I?"

Your evaluation above is of a transcript of Craig's rebuttal, not the opening statement.

No, the original comment that he makes (which I quoted above) is in the opening statement. He doesn't clarify what he means until his first rebuttal. That he devoted several pages/minutes to the "untruth" doesn't mean that it made it's first appearance anywhere other than where I said it did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

I expect that in a rebuttal, where one is addressing a number of points brought up by the opponent in a very short time, that there is going to be rapid movement from point to point to point to address the opponent's argument.

And this addresses what Craig did how? Craig made opening remarks. Ehrman made opening remarks. Craig had a rebuttal. Ehrman had a rebuttal.

Trying to characterize this as Craig reeling from all the arguments presented by Ehrman is a little dishonest.

Here is the second paragraph is Ehrman's opening statement (which came after Craig's):

Quote:

In my opening speech here I will not be dealing directly with the many, many points Bill has already raised. I will instead lay out my own case, which, by the way, is not exactly that case that he said I was going to make, although there are some points of similarity. Iíll lay out my own case, and in my next speech Iíll show why, in my opinion, the position that he has just staked out is so problematic.

How much of Craig's first rebuttal does he spend addressing what Ehrman said in his opening statement? Absolutely none that I could see. He spends the entire time arguing the strawman that his introduced in his opening statement (this is the part where he equates Ehrman's argument with one of Hume's works and produces the alternative authors which represents "most moral philosophers" which allegedly refutes Hume's points via Craig's math).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

I also expect decent reasoning but not perfection in a rebuttal--that's such a fluid environment and it's public speaking, not written arguments. There's no way to anticipate 100% what your opponent is going to bring up in the opening statement, so the rebuttal is going to change as the opening statement evolves.

Good thing that Craig was able to ignore what Ehrman actually said and move into a lengthy powerpoint presentation then, huh? Also, pen and paper for notes are usually permitted in a formal debate, but that's beside the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

Ehrman does the same exact thing in his rebuttal--moving rapidly from point to point to point, except with less proof.

Each of these points are followed by a couple of paragraphs of support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

All he says is 'Craig's wrong' while providing some vague references to 'some historians'.

Well, Craig is wrong, but I'll investigate the "some historians" part. On which page did you find Ehrman doing this (not to be confused with all the places where Craig does it)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

At least Craig quotes the author and book from which he gets his information on Hume's arguments (not 'unattributed', as you claim)

The mathematical "argument" that Craig makes is his, not the author's. Therefore, presenting the argument is though it is the author's would be to falsely attribute it to him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

I expect that Craig would not go into a long drawn out discussion of the entire Hume/Ehrman problem in a rebuttal.

Neither would I, knowing his habit of not addressing strawmen arguments that he introduces.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

The probability equations appear to be accurate

Yes, insofar as you accept all of the conditions that Craig introduces as true. In other words, if you accept his conclusions then you can follow the evidence which supports his conclusions. This is called "circular reasoning".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

Equating Ehrman's argument with Hume and then quoting someone else's refutation of Hume is only a strawman if Ehrman's argument is substantially different from Hume's, and if it is, then I can concede that point.

It is only not a strawman if Ehrman introduces it, which he does not (Craig does in his opening statement). In fact, Ehrman points out that he has his own argument to make (*gasp*), a statement I quoted above for your convenience.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

I think your characterization of Craig as 'immoral hypocrite' (or worse) based on this rebuttal argument, which by definition is not going to be a complete argument because it is only addressing points of the opponent's opening statement, is unfair.

I'm sure Craig appreciates the support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi

I hope you aren't basing your entire opinion of Craig or other speakers based on this type of evaluation of speeches--you are cheating yourself in that way.

Yes, in fact I do base my opinion of people on their actions and their words. Is there another method that I'm not familiar with?

PS: Whenever I post something that "requires research", I now know how to get a decent turn-around time on a response: Include a reference to Dr. Craig